it all together. .. consists of roughly 7800 foreign service officers, a 11,000 civil servants, and 42,000 foreign nationals. in 200,916,000 applicants to contest to join the foreign service competing for roughly 1,000 jobs. the people selected had college

degrees, 11 years of prior work experience before coming to the service. two-thirds of the people selected for this service, and with postgraduate degrees. 80 percent have lived overseas. foreign service officers are awarded tenure after four years. 95 percent of the serving officers receive tenure. 25 percent of all our diplomats are concentrated in only 30 countries, 2000 and iraq and afghanistan. what is wrong with state? >> guest: there are several things. although it is an institution that ought to begin that its job and could be, with careful managerial attention, the main problem is that even by their own description they are not hiring people who have the skills that they say they need for contemporary diplomacy. they're not hiring the right

people. as you pointed out, they keep them out and don't teach them anything in the meantime. as a department expands all of its training resources on teaching languages. yet as their jobs requiring language proficiency in the state department, 25 percent of them are filled by people who cannot effectively use the language. another 25 percent but people who are not easily proficient in language. so they have a 50% rate by their own standard on this whole area that they expand their training resources on. it is not a good business model. >> host: why is there a 50% failure rate? >> guest: so that the way that the state department, the career progression is that you take a diplomatic post, you are assigned to a diplomatic post for a couple of years. after that you go to language training in and go someplace

else. we develop generalists in the american foreign service. we don't develop experts. so, for example, a talented, young foreign service officer may be posted in baghdad and then, this is actually an example of someone i know, she would go to a couple of years of language training and then be sent to beijing. and so -- >> host: language training in arabic? >> guest: she will have that language training to go to iraq, but probably not enough so that she would have felt comfortable having a discussion like you and i are now having in the language of the compass -- country she was operating in. then she will be the year or two of language training and be sent to china. it is an extraordinarily profligate professional development model. and i would just point out that kids come into the palo alto school district speaking 132 different languages already. we could actually hire people who have the language skills

that what. we don't actually have to teach them all that. so it's a business model that you would never start with. and the culture of the state department replicates the select people who have the skills of the people already there are. so the sample that you pointed out, and emissions rate the equivalent of stanford university. you have as i like the head of getting admitted into stated as you have a becoming a member of the foreign service. we ought to be able to pick anyone we what it. the people we pick a very good, but the institution does not make them any better over time, and that's something we should fix it. >> host: ready you "secretary rice says saying that they have pentagon in the? >> what he meant by that is that there is a to send.

my favorite example of it is secretary clinton quadrennial diplomacy and development review, a great thing she did. it was the first time a secretary of state had done it. she did so once every four years look at the institution and to set priorities. and it was a good for start, but it has a long way to go before it is ineffective management review. one way you can tell that is that secretary clinton opened by saying we set out to figure out how to make ourselves better. the conclusions they came to, if you only give us more money and more people we could be better. and so the vision of the pentagon from the state department is that they get all the money and what for the work of the foreign service is every bit as difficult and dangerous, yet everyone likes the military and there is no constituents.

♪ one of the american people like the state department? >> so only 2 million americans avail themselves of service overseas, so it's not a very high number. most americans don't know their diplomats. they're mostly posted overseas. the foreign service institute where they do there training is here in washington. so when spokane, washington state to more duluth, minn., they don't know them. and the foreign service could actually do itself a huge favor by stitching itself more closely into american society. i have some suggestions in the book for ways that they could do that. one would be what american diplomats like about themselves is complicated multinational negotiation, things like climate change discussions in copenhagen

. it's hard. it's intellectually difficult to master the material. lots of moving pieces. but americans actually value the state department, if your brother gets arrested and el salvador an american diplomat will go see him in jail, make sure that he's being treated fairly, ensure that the protections that any american citizen should have anywhere in the world are afforded him. and the state department use that as a -- as its lease support responsibility. the culture does not reward it. its most talented people don't go into those affairs, but a study done recently suggested that -- the state department complains that after september september 11th so much funding and attention went to security. yet american diplomats are the first line of defense for our protection of our country, the people who give visas to foreigners who might come to the

united states. and the people who do that are our youngest foreign service officers. it's required first tour to be posted summer. the workload is enormous and the dow get lots of attention. yet they do it fantastically. why doesn't the state department celebrate those and diplomats? because my mom would be thrilled. that would make her like the foreign service. but seeing it undersecretary sweeping out of the copenhagen negotiation does not do much for my mom. >> host: for those who have traveled overseas and actually tried to visit one of our embassies, it's nearly impossible. it's a fortress. >> guest: this is excellent at the state department's fault. the congress, out of concern about protecting american diplomats and in particularly after the bombings of the american embassies in nairobi

during the clinton administration congress started legislating much better protection. but it has the dysfunctional outcome. it's actually not make the american diplomats say for because it's so difficult to get into an american embassy that they go out to have the meetings so they are less well protected, although they're doing their jobs well. out and about and foreign societies, being the american people see. >> host: going to read a quote that you have in your book. telesis is from three washington will, a couple of war, the in decision, hesitation, and outs of the past year, the pretenses and fumbling oregon. argument over, the country and its capital turned to what americans like and do best, action. in a few months half a continent and 130 million people were transformed into the greatest military power the world that scene. amid this burst of energy the state department stood

breathless and bewildered like an old lady had a busy intersection during rush-hour. what is that from? >> it is deemed atkinson riding on december 8th 1941 right after pearl harbor. he was at that time the assistant secretary of state for economic affairs, and he was exasperated to see that the state department was not better at its job. he goes on to say that what the state department need to be doing was acquiring the resources that a war machine would be in keeping them out of the hands of our enemies. he found the state department singly unable to do that. >> host: kori schake, you worked at the national security council for president george w. bush, director for defense strategy and requirements. did you find the same state department that the 1941 era at?

>> guest: i went to work in the pentagon is my first real job. one of the things i was really struck by, i did not grow up in a military family and did not know the culture. i was distraught that the american military has brew teachers because they live in an environment where you cannot be good at your job unless you can make everyone else but their job i was the person that everyone had to make another job. and when i went to the state department 20 years later i was struck that the people who are successful in the state department are people who can get thrown into the deep end of the pool and not drown, but no one ever teaches them to swim. the best of them don't even values swimming lessons because, after all, they didn't drown. and so it's a culture that makes very little of the enormous human has and risks of a bit of attention and basic management you could realign the

incentive structure and make it as well functioning as the military as. the military is great at making a lot of very little. the state department could be as well. we just don't hold them to the same standard. my argument in the book is to try and show that we should not lead to inherently civilian responsibilities accrue to the military in a way that they have since september 11th. that is actually bad for our country. we need to make the people whose job it is, important to the world to see civilians doing civilian foreign-policy. and we actually need to make a state department cable doing that. ♪ is there a bias against republicans in this department? >> guest: i did not find that. i found was a culture believes itself praetorian in a sense. they are the guardians of american foreign policy against

all of these politicians. for example, the foreign service complaints. there was an editorial in the washington poor -- opposed to the two weeks ago by ambassador pickering in a few others arguing against political appointees being named to senior ambassadorial posts. but there's actually no evidence that political ambassadors are any less good at their jobs than the career foreign service officers. in fact innocent times they're better because they understand the president's agenda and have the kinds of connections to the white house that allow them to advance the agenda. protecting american foreign policy against the people who get elected to run the country. and that's of either political persuasion. and that is just part of the reason that congress does not like them.

as part of the reason that they don't resonate with the broader american public. >> host: in your book "state of disrepair" you think secretary rice for her help in putting this together. did she share your viewpoint? >> guest: i would not burden her with all of my views, but she gives me a couple of very good interviews for the vote, and i was working as that the foreign policy when she was secretary. so i got to watch her struggle with trying to fix some of these problems. you may remember, the notorious incident where she was doing a town hall meeting, foreign service officers. some offer more come to us some of them are complaining that did not want to be deployed to iraq because it was dangerous. that, i think, is not characteristic of the people of the foreign service. it is characteristic of the problems that we need to fix and the culture.

in the people of the foreign service, they're actually terrific. the dangerous work with almost no attention. they never have enough resources to do it. they got in the world and try a to tell people about the united states and the we're doing in the world. the people are interested -- terrific. ♪ what does the deputy for policy planning at the state department do? >> guest: of so glad you asked that. policy planning is a small 24 our person staff that works director for the secretary. they are the kind of in-house critics. they try and dream up ideas that the bureaucracy itself would not produce for the secretary. they second-guess what is going to the secretary's mind. as you can tell, they are widely popular in the apartment. but in fact, half of the staff of policy planning a foreign service officers, a professional diplomat sued can if they want

an opportunity to get in the way from the constraints of consentual policy-making and try and put the best ideas to the secretary. this is really inspiring. and the people are fun and exciting. let me just give you one example. we had someone who did poorly about iranian public attitude. people who have ideas that they would vote for in a parliamentary elections. of course the iranian supreme council vets canada, so we created fake internet candid it's to have the fuse that one of the vote for them and tens of thousands actually voted for them in the election. it was such fun mischief. and the apartment was supportive of it. you could not have done that from within the bureau of middle eastern affairs, but you could do it from policy planning. we had, at that time, a really terrific director, david gordon,

a career intelligence officer who was not afraid of ideas he did not agree with. so he was the perfect leader for that kind of buffett. it was a privilege to work for him. >> host: "state of disrepair," the department of state is deficient in three crucial areas in which the department of defense excels. mission focused on education, and program. >> it is really true. if u.s. the marine corps what they do, you would get a straight answer. every marine is a rifleman. u.s. the diplomat what they do, it's much harder because they have a much more diffuse focus. it also means that the leaders of the institution are not conveying the core values of such responsibility. and if you don't do that people very quickly lose focus. and on the programming part, part of the reason that congress trusts the pentagon with an enormous amount of the

taxpayers' money is because the pentagon provides a lot of affirmation -- information and make assessments of whether it is worth it. so think about the commander in iraq during the surge. congress was dutifully skeptical that the surge was working. what did the military do? they identified what they thought their right metrics work for which seldom sells accountable. a number of intelligence that there were getting. the number of attacks. the collected data over the course of the year, made it public so that scholars could second-guess whether anyone had better ideas than it and it was on that basis that changes congressional attitude. the power of ideas and proving a case is how to win policy debates with the congress. the state department does not have the bureaucratic machinery

to build the budget that is defensible in the way that the defense department is. skin deep in my heart i am an insurance actuary. i think we need green eye shade budgeteers will make the state department budget as bulletproof as the defense department. >> host: kori schake has worked at the national security council at the state department, currently a research fellow at the hoover institution. she has taught at west point, johns hopkins, the national defense university. how did you get interested in this line of work? [laughter] >> guest: i was a student of secretary rice. i had a grand idea about writing my ph.d. on the the renaissance of the latin american novel in the 1970's and what this tells us about the law of literature and art. and it did not do that. >> host: "state of disrepair"

is the name of the book. one of the recommendations that we have is that for the state department to reconsider universality. >> guest: we have american embassies within every country that we have diplomatic relations in. and that makes a certain amount of sense. if you tried said real vision how to spend our resources on diplomacy, it is not entirely clear to me that luxembourg would need an embassy of its own when belgium is next door and the european union as a lot of its diplomatic work in brussels now. so it seems to me possible that given american predominance in the international order much of the work that we would want to do diplomatically behind politics, state to state relations mostly gets done in

washington. what we need american embassies for out in the world are to take care of americans when they're traveling and to be involved in local activities in other societies. so the great democratization that the communications revolution and other things of our modern age, you know, we don't so much needed embassy in berlin to be talking to the german government. we need to be out at community meetings, seeing what new political parties are doing. the fbi working with their german counterpart on terrorism issues. a lot of those kinds of things. we don't the embassies to do that necessarily. and some interesting experimentation about whether we can have -- create virtual access centers, for example, where you really, really need them. societies where there is not free transmission of information

to my favorite example is ambassador ford in damascus, who i think at the start of the syrian civil war did an enormously powerful and important job for the united states by going to the funerals, the political people read been killed by the government showing that americans care about that. giving interviews about what the government was doing. that is american diplomacy at its finest. that is what we need to free the state department up to be out doing in the world. >> host: and kori schake is the author of "state of disrepair: fixing the culture and practices of the state department". thank you for joining us on book tv. >> guest: it is been a pleasure. >> is there a nonfiction of your book you would like to see beecher on book tv? send us an e-mail at booktv.org. >> carol peppe hewitt sat down with book tv while we were in

raleigh, north carolina, with the help of our local partner, time warner cable. an activist and business owner, co-founder of slow money which works to finance north carolina sustainable food and farming economy. >> the book is "financing our foodshed: growing local food with slow money". the slow money was the brainchild of a man who had the idea that you could take the concept of money, a venture-capital, investments, loans, and instead of sending it off to wall street you could invested writing your local community. in particular in food. so the idea is if we slow food down you get more quality, thoughtfulness, and it is just better all-around. if you slow money down you get the same result. more thoughtful attention to where your money goes, is it doing good, harm. in particular what if you try to invest it right in your own

local community? sustainable farming, businesses that support local food, the support soil fertility, what if we did that? what difference would that make it? we think it would make a huge difference. several years ago i got more interested in a local food movement ended up one of the big obstacles for small farmers was capital to buy a farm, but even just small amounts of capital for a piece of equipment. thirty years ago when my husband and i move to a not carolina, we were able to buy very rundown place. if we have not had a loan from a family member to help us get started curmudgeon dozen dollars at the time made all the difference. it took us years to pay it back. but without that law whenever would have cut our business started. here we are 30 years later and have been able to make a living, raise our kids, but to enter school. and now it's time that i get a chance to pay for work. i have worked with other small businesses, over the years with artists of the members started.

now i find myself working also with farmers and local food businesses. the small business skills that are needed and the capitol that is needed is very similar. this low money project looks for small farmers and local food businesses that support farming. for example, today we are here at sweet cheeks bakery. the most marvelous story. when she first approached slow money for $40,000, we were just getting started. we had one gun 2011 loan. we had done nothing even remotely close. unfortunately we had to turn her way. it is kind of an idea. we think it is good. i just wish we could help, but weekend. year later she came back. by then we found other people had also wanted. we have done several of them. this point she only needed for

or $5,000 for a mixture. she underdog. nashua's hoping to up find a 60--quart mixer. that is the kind of project that we do. she was able to get a loan for the money that she needed to buy the mixer at a very low interest rate. usually these f2, three, 4%. because the lender is not doing it for the money. the people want to make these kind of loans are interested in the mission behind the slow money concept. they support the idea of building. this supports the idea of helping small farmers and local food businesses. and that is the -- it is the social benefit as well as the financial benefit. so people often ask me who makes his loans. he would make one of these loans? their high risk. personal loans. a risky because businesses can go out of business. they -- a farmer can have of that summer, bad season.

on the other hand, they tend to be @booktv to perform very well because people have made a connection, built a french ship. these loans are based on three things, generosity, trust, and granted that is the picture of the lender and the borrower right there, the trust and the metal is a big part of that. so they tend to perform very well. people often ask if we have any defaults. very few. on a couple occasions where things did not go well. but even in those cases, those lenders are still trying to figure out a way to pay back the loans. so why the people land? they lend because they care. i like to say that we do it because we can, much like a said it is important -- i'm trying now to pay it for because the small loans would help my business is started 30 years ago because we can. to have a deep belief that

l gethe morning and only need food, clothing, and shelter but they want to make something happen that day. they want to go to bed at night knowing it did some good. and this project is a great way to do that. here we are just about almost exactly three years later, and i am now facilitating about 80 loans a north carolina to about 40 different small farmers and food businesses, and it totals over $720,000. the goal here is to build resilience in our local food shed. almost all the lenders were raised from very ordinary, if you will, working class or middle class upbringings. and they felt for different reasons -- everyone has their own personal reason, but they fell like this was very important, something that wants to do. either there were fed up with all street and took all the money out and were looking

to find places with meaning to invest it. that was the case with one person that the $5,000 loan to one young couple and another $5,000 loan to someone winterizing a farmer's market. she was part of a large project rid of the $25,000 investment. many people have made multiple loans. the big one, there were 16 people that put together a $25,000 each. $400,000 together. formed in elsie, refinanced our local food co-op. there were facing a large balloon payment. they had been in business about three years, and that loan was with the bank of virginia. you're able to find 16 people. there were all willing to pay several points less interest, much less interest. while they get a reasonable return, it cut the payment by one-third. so they saved $2,500 a month because local people another

bank, which actually leads me to why wrote the book and why wrote the stories down. one after another they were very personal, heartwarming, compelling stories. and i just felt that if i could share them with people, you know, year in north carolina as well as around the world in the country they might take a look and say, we can do this. i want to do this. and they can. and they could. wherever they live. kansas, arkansas, made. that is exactly what is happening. >> for more permission on book tv recent visit go to c-span.org / local content. ..